http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
HE was just a footnote to a scandal that was rapidly becoming ancient
history. But the return of Elliot Abrams to a position of power in Washington
has been enough to set the teeth of some people on edge.

When the appointment of Abrams to the post of director of the office for
democracy, human rights and international operations at the National Security
Council was announced, few noticed. But, predictably, Abrams foes on the left
howled.

One mainstream outlet for such criticism was the July 11 editorial page of
The Philadelphia Inquirer. On that day, the Inqy devoted the majority of its
editorial space to blasting Abrams in a manner normally reserved for less
esoteric foes on the City Council.

According to the paper, Abrams was unfit for office, “a shameful choice” of a
man who was “a deceitful, scheming coddler of Latin American tyrants,” and
who had been convicted of involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.

History, even recent history, is something we assume most Americans know
little about. Thus, it is doubtful that many of the Inquirer’s readers knew
anything about Abrams before reading their screed. But rather than giving
those readers a grasp of the complex role of Abrams,who was Assistant
Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the Inquirer preferred
to heap abuse on him.

While such invective against Abrams might have been expected back in the late
’80s, it was curious to read it today. When Abrams’ fast-rising diplomatic
career was ended by the Iran-Contra scandal, it was still possible for some
to pretend that the Cold War — and those like Abrams who were fighting it —
was a pointless and maybe even a wrongful cause. But no longer. The real
story is that whatever the flaws of Reagan’s policy, Abrams was on the right
side of history and subsequent events proved him correct.

OUSTING THE SANDINISTAS AND PINOCHET
Twenty years ago, the Soviet empire was expanding, and Marxist revolutiona
ries were succeeding in toppling right-wing oligarchies in the Third World.
While the men with the guns sought to offer the people of Central and South
America a stark choice between the despotism of a Fidel Castro and his
imitators and that of Augusto Pinochet and his imitators, there were some who
thought democracy was a viable alternative.

The administration of President Ronald Reagan was determined to “roll back”
the victories of a foe they had the chutzpah — and the wisdom — to term an
“evil empire.” The result was a campaign to aid those who were willing to
resist the Marxists gunmen that was often mischaracterized as solely an
effort to back dictators.

In El Salvador, a government led by Jose Duarte, a heroic believer in
democracy, was aided in its fight to survive against leftist rebels who
wanted to shoot their way into power.

In Nicaragua, the despotic rule of the Marxist Sandinistas — who had
themselves ousted a vile right-wing government long supported by the United
States — were also opposed by the Contras, a coalition of democrats and less
savory allies who received American aid.

The twists and turns of the history of those conflicts were many and often
tragic. There were atrocities committed on both sides of these civil wars.

But the bottom line was the efforts of Abrams to promote democracy triumphed.
Contrary to the assertions of his detractors, Abrams played a key role in
easing Pinochet out of power in Chile.

Thanks to the assistance given its democratic government by the United
States, El Salvador’s democrats were able to defeat the Marxists gunmen and
force them to accept the idea that the fate of the country would be decided
by ballots and not Soviet-made machine guns.

And in Nicaragua, the pressure placed upon its new Socialist bosses forced
them to accept fair elections in which they were promptly ousted.

The Cold War was won, but those eager to refight the political battles of the
1980s prefer to only think of Abrams, who had previously worked for Democrats
like Sens. Daniel Patrick Moyniha of New York and Henry "Scoop" Jackson" of
Washington, as a man who deceived Congress about efforts to aid the Contras
during the short period when it was illegal for the U.S. government to do so.

OUT-OF-CONTROL PROSECUTOR
Iran-Contra was a bizarre, foolish scheme, and Abrams’ peripheral involvement
was not to his credit. Yet rather than break a promise given by his superiors
to foreign governments that had insisted upon a pledge of secrecy, Abrams did
not tell the truth when he testified (although not under oath) to
congressional committees. That was wrong, but it didn’t justify the decision
of America’s first out-of-control special prosecutor Lawrence Welch to make
an example of Abrams. Most federal officials, past and present, have
similarly avoided telling Congress all they knew about topics, but few have
ever been threatened with prison for it.

Though Democrats suffering from the similarly unfettered reach of Kenneth
Starr would eventually agree with the Republicans and abolish this
extra-constitutional office, there was no sympathy for Abrams. He was a very
young man with a reputation for arrogance. At the time, he had a choice of
persisting in defending himself and his career, and thereby bankrupting his
family with the costs of lawyers or copping a plea. The latter would save his
family, but end his ambitions. He surprised everyone by choosing not to fight.
The conviction on two charges brought him a slap on the wrist, and he was
soon pardoned by the first President Bush in 1991. Abrams accepted his fate
and slipped quietly out of the public’s view.

Since then, Abrams helped found a think tank called the Ethics and Public
Policy Center, and devoted himself to the cause of human rights and to the
question of the future of American Jewry. In 1997, he penned what is probably
the most valuable book on the subject, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in
a Christian America. It cannily outlined the importance of Jewish education
and stressed that assimilation, not anti-Semitism, was the real threat to
Jews in this country.

Even more importantly, he served as a member since 1998, and in the last year
as chairman, of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Persecution.
In that role, Abrams has helped lead the fight in Washington to bring
morality into our foreign policy, focusing concern on persecutors of
believers in places such as China, Sudan and Egypt.

But to some on the left, it is forever 1986. He is still the neo-conservative
that deprived them of their illusions about gun-toting Marxists. Even after
his humiliation at the hands of an office they would themselves come to
revile, the left cannot let go. They seem to hate Elliot Abrams not because
he was wrong about the Cold War, but because history proved him right.

A VALUABLE ADDITION
I’m not sure why he is willing to subject himself again to press scrutiny.
Apparently Abrams thinks the issues are more important than the privacy he
has gained outside of the government.

As it happens, the administration of George W. Bush has floundered in its
efforts to craft a foreign policy or a rationale for one. Abrams brings great
skill and a passionate commitment to promoting democracy to his job. He is
also a strong supporter of Israel and will be a crucial addition to Dubya’s
foreign-policy team.

Abrams has grown since his evasions landed him in the dock. He can also take
satisfaction in the fact that, revisionists at the Inquirer notwithstanding,
he was on the side of the angels in the 1980s and that history will
ultimately vindicate his work, even if Iran-Contra will always be a stain on
it.

Let’s hope Abrams has the chance to add further luster to his legacy in
the years
ahead.